Wright writes.....

[Tony Wright]

Tony, I'd say that the plane of sharpness starts at the leading edge of the barrow crossing, the crossbeam of the buffer stop looks slightly soft too.  Apart from that, a terrific shot and I'm thinking that in real life, a shot from that spot, trying to get the loco and train in focus, would result in the foreground being thrown out anyway!

 

(And apart from the humpty third coach, the degree ot naturalness is amazing.  now how about some smoke and steam effects.......   )

 

I swear, I proofread before clicking post, but still... Grrr!!!

Thanks for your comments. 

 

During my art school days (well over 50 years ago now), we were taught that one should always 'invite' the eye into a (naturalistic) picture. By that I mean, looking beyond the foreground (which could well be out of focus) to the principal subject. In portraiture (which I was always useless at), the eyes had to be in focus but the rest could be soft. 

 

I'd never claim that any of my pictures are 'artistic', but it's nice of you to consider the one you mention perhaps 'naturalistic'. It does, of course, depend on the subject matter being 'good' modelling at source. As I've said many times, I'm lucky that principal items like the trackwork, structures and signalling were built/installed by some very highly-skilled modellers. 

 

As for digital 'smoke', no thanks. In my view it adds nothing at all to a model railway picture; just in the same way that adding real backgrounds (other than skies) doesn't either.

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Hroth]

The steam and smoke comment was meant to be tongue in cheek, given the way some of the mags get criticised for overdoing it!

 

However, a subtle quiver of heat haze over the loco boiler, distorting the footbridge slightly, perhaps? 

 

Perhaps not......

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

 

 

I'd never claim that any of my pictures are 'artistic', but it's nice of you to consider the one you mention perhaps 'naturalistic'. It does, of course, depend on the subject matter being 'good' modelling at source. As I've said many times, I'm lucky that principal items like the trackwork, structures and signalling were built/installed by some very highly-skilled modellers. 

 

 

Here you are too modest.

 

Trying to capture in a photograph something of the essence of what one observes and appreciates in real life - whether that be an actual railway or a model - is very much an 'art' ... as evidenced by all those who fail. As you rightly say, because the eye is constantly roaming and only focusses sharply on that which it is specifically looking at (building up the rest of the picture in 'the minds eye' so to speak) the mind naturally filters the extraneous. A camera cannot do this. So if you want to give an accurate impression of how something is actually experienced through the medium of photography,  it takes not only considerable skill but also a very good eye ... and that is before one even starts to talk about the technical aspects such as the eye's ability to compensate for a massively greater range of light and dark than a camera ever can etc etc etc. Sorry if this sounds a little pompous ... but so often when I see excellent photography of model railways the name of T. Wright appears beneath the offending articles.

 

message to self ... climb down off soap box!

[Atso]

I hope Tony doesn't mind but I would like to share the progress on the K3/1 shown a little earlier today.

 

[glo41f]

Thank you for the pictures of the Retford Duo's creation. These two gents are at the top of the tree as far as I am concerned and I love seeing their handiwork. Thank you for sharing with us. I am a great admirer from afar of the Retford project though not being fortunate enough to see the thing for real. As our leader is familiar with the system and indeed is an operator there I would like to ask a question or two. Roy J. was always a bit of an iconoclast where trends in modelmaking were concerned and I recall his essay in an early MRJ decrying compensation and other fancy things which were then the rage in finescale saying that his models had to earn their keep by running long and hard around large layouts. That was in Dunwich days. Now Retford is about five(?) times the size of Dunwich and the distances travelled by locos and rolling stock must be huge. Is there any signs of things physically wearing on RJ's stock. I would have thought that connecting rods and valve gear components would be the first failures given the distances travelled but rolling stock axleboxes would also show some wear too. I know of one venerable 7mm model which is now 30 plus years old and such is the wear that it can turn a quarter of a wheel revolution without the con rods moving. The owner is reluctant to renew as it is still a reliable workhorse. (It has been through a couple of motors). RJ would also experience motor failure perhaps given the mileages run. 

 It would be most interesting to have some comments please on how the Retford stock is lasting.

 

Finally does the exquisite GE based layout of Geoff Kent still exist?  Always thought that that was one of the best too.

 

Thanks

 

Martin Long

Edited October 6, 2017 by glo41f

[Barry O]

Interested by the car polish. Would this work equally well on enamels where you wanted to put a bit of shine back? How does it interact with the powders?

I use a cotton wool bud to put a very tiny bit of polish on then, using another "bud" I polish it up.  They don;t get too close to the powders - in this case we are looking at leaving the dirt where the cleaner's hands couldn't (or didn't) get to. In this instance the powders were added to slightly wet ink to build up a "general locomotive carp" deposit.

 

Baz

[Tony Wright]

I hope Tony doesn't mind but I would like to share the progress on the K3/1 shown a little earlier today.

 

K3 GNR Cab and chassis.JPG

Why should I mind? 

 

I'd be unhappy if you didn't share the progress you're making on your models. 

[Tony Wright]

Here you are too modest.

 

Trying to capture in a photograph something of the essence of what one observes and appreciates in real life - whether that be an actual railway or a model - is very much an 'art' ... as evidenced by all those who fail. As you rightly say, because the eye is constantly roaming and only focusses sharply on that which it is specifically looking at (building up the rest of the picture in 'the minds eye' so to speak) the mind naturally filters the extraneous. A camera cannot do this. So if you want to give an accurate impression of how something is actually experienced through the medium of photography,  it takes not only considerable skill but also a very good eye ... and that is before one even starts to talk about the technical aspects such as the eye's ability to compensate for a massively greater range of light and dark than a camera ever can etc etc etc. Sorry if this sounds a little pompous ... but so often when I see excellent photography of model railways the name of T. Wright appears beneath the offending articles.

 

message to self ... climb down off soap box!

Tim,

 

Keep on standing on your soap box and proclaim any opinion you like. I always to. 

 

False modesty is not as bad as pomposity, but it's irritating. If I'm guilty of the former, then I apologise. However, I don't think I am. 

 

I loath the perception of people taking credit for the work of others. Though the photography is 'all my own work', the subject matter certainly isn't. Thus, if folk are generous with their praise about a photograph, that needs tempering with praise for what's in the photograph. If the work of others is not acknowledged (time after time), then a false impression is given.

 

Without going the opposite way to modesty, what is the main reason why a picture such as the one below looks so 'good'? 

 

 

Because of the exceptional all-round modelling, that's why. Geoff Kent has done most of this himself (Roy Jackson built the points). It's so redolent of the Buckley/Connah's Quay area of N.Wales in the '50s, so beautifully understated and so well-observed. All I had to do was use the camera's considerable capabilities and employ a little bit of knowledge in the processing. The picture would be nothing without such lovely subject matter. 

 

 

Though there is still an enormous amount to do on Retford, if the completed elements in a picture such as this are to such a high standard as those shown here, the photographer's job is easy. Roy Jackson built the loco and Geoff Kent painted it. The signal was built by either Mick Moore or Martin Lloyd (both have built signals for Retford to the same high standard). Using a (very) powerful camera and a little know-how, it's easy to get a 'good' picture with such 'good' subject matter. 

 

 

 

Mention has been made as to whether Geoff Kent's Blakeney is still around. It is, and shares the same home as Retford and Black Lion Halt. 

 

In case anyone feels that this whole post stinks of 'false modesty', then they're wrong. Credit must ALWAYS (sorry for shouting) be given for the work of others. Yes, if I were no good at taking pictures, then editors wouldn't have employed me. However, it's the subject matter which is more important and whoever created that subject matter should be acknowledged. That, I'm afraid, is not always the case and I've come across too many examples where people believe that the 'creator' of the photograph is also the 'creator' of what's in it. But, it isn't. 

 

I hope I give the true acknowledgements to the contributors to LB when I give my talk tomorrow in Grantham to the LNER Society. If I don't, perhaps someone will tell me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

Tim,

 

Keep on standing on your soap box and proclaim any opinion you like. I always to. 

 

False modesty is not as bad as pomposity, but it's irritating. If I'm guilty of the former, then I apologise. However, I don't think I am. 

 

I loath the perception of people taking credit for the work of others. Though the photography is 'all my own work', the subject matter certainly isn't. Thus, if folk are generous with their praise about a photograph, that needs tempering with praise for what's in the photograph. If the work of others is not acknowledged (time after time), then a false impression is given.

 

Without going the opposite way to modesty, what is the main reason why a picture such as the one below looks so 'good'? 

 

Black Lion 25.jpg

 

Because of the exceptional all-round modelling, that's why. Geoff Kent has done most of this himself (Roy Jackson built the points). It's so redolent of the Buckley/Connah's Quay area of N.Wales in the '50s, so beautifully understated and so well-observed. All I had to do was use the camera's considerable capabilities and employ a little bit of knowledge in the processing. The picture would be nothing without such lovely subject matter. 

 

Retford 15 04.jpg

 

Though there is still an enormous amount to do on Retford, if the completed elements in a picture such as this are to such a high standard as those shown here, the photographer's job is easy. Roy Jackson built the loco and Geoff Kent painted it. The signal was built by either Mick Moore or Martin Lloyd (both have built signals for Retford to the same high standard). Using a (very) powerful camera and a little know-how, it's easy to get a 'good' picture with such 'good' subject matter. 

 

Introduction 20.jpg

 

Mention has been made as to whether Geoff Kent's Blakeney is still around. It is, and shares the same home as Retford and Black Lion Halt. 

 

In case anyone feels that this whole post stinks of 'false modesty', then they're wrong. Credit must ALWAYS (sorry for shouting) be given for the work of others. Yes, if I were no good at taking pictures, then editors wouldn't have employed me. However, it's the subject matter which is more important and whoever created that subject matter should be acknowledged. That, I'm afraid, is not always the case and I've come across too many examples where people believe that the 'creator' of the photograph is also the 'creator' of what's in it. But, it isn't. 

 

I hope I give the true acknowledgements to the contributors to LB when I give my talk tomorrow in Grantham to the LNER Society. If I don't, perhaps someone will tell me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

all true ... and yet my point stands. Just because a view is sublime does not mean it can be captured and conveyed ... though most can perceive it in the flesh. And no one can accuse you of not giving credit. There was no intent to accuse of false modesty.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[Tony Wright]

all true ... and yet my point stands. Just because a view is sublime does not mean it can be captured and conveyed ... though most can perceive it in the flesh. And no one can accuse you of not giving credit. There was no intent to accuse of false modesty.

Many thanks.

 

You didn't accuse me of false modesty. That was my term. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony. 

[Hroth]

...

In case anyone feels that this whole post stinks of 'false modesty', then they're wrong. Credit must ALWAYS (sorry for shouting) be given for the work of others. Yes, if I were no good at taking pictures, then editors wouldn't have employed me. However, it's the subject matter which is more important and whoever created that subject matter should be acknowledged. That, I'm afraid, is not always the case and I've come across too many examples where people believe that the 'creator' of the photograph is also the 'creator' of what's in it. But, it isn't. 

 

I hope I give the true acknowledgements to the contributors to LB when I give my talk tomorrow in Grantham to the LNER Society. If I don't, perhaps someone will tell me. 

 

Regards,

 

Tony.

What your photographs show is a knack of what the "art photographers" call previsualisation, a concept that dates back to Ansel Adams who defined it as "the ability to anticipate a finished image before making the exposure". I suppose its what separates a photographer from a casual snapshotter.  This ability allows you to insert your lens into the view as if you were at the same scale and so all the proportions and fine work of the modelmaker are captured as a realistic whole.   I wish I could do it, my layout photos all look like a homage to Brian Monaghan (cue helicopter sfx)....

 

Does Private Eye still have Pseuds Corner?  I hope not!   

[glo41f]

Thank you for the update on Blakeney. (I had a lapse and could not remember its name!)  I saw this at the Southwold show many years back and was knocked out by the realism of the buildings and the smoothness of the operation. RJ was in attendance with GK and I had a long chat with him in the course of which he mentioned his work on Retford which at that stage was a concept and a few boards. He also told me what happened to Dunwich. We also discussed loco building in some depth and he was I felt of the opinion that things should be made as solidly as was possible as if you got the track right there was no need for flexibility in the mechanism. Frank Dyer was also strongly of this view. They are all wonderful modellers and their creations give great delight to us striving to emulate their efforts. ( I write as one who has a mysterious short circuit on a 3 point shunting plank and it is driving me nuts! Never had such problems with Super 4 track!)

 

Martin Long

[Atso]

Why should I mind? 

 

I'd be unhappy if you didn't share the progress you're making on your models.

 

Then may I add one more in progress photograph tonight please?

 

 

This (bad) picture represents the state of play before going out for dinner with my better half earlier. The three locos have now received their basic paint jobs prior to being lined out. This was achieved using gloss acrylic paints, utilising their very fast drying times. I like to start by airbrushing the buffer beams and then masking these up before spraying the main colour (this this case black).

 

As I'll be lining with enamels, I'll be leaving these three until Sunday/Monday to give some time for the acrylic paint to harden and become inert as to not react with the lining paints. I still need to sort out a permanent tender for the K3/1.

 

The reason why these are progressing so rapidly is because I've been asked to be a demonstrator at a local show a week Saturday and need to bolster my existing locomotive stud to provide something to actually show as completed models.

[Tony Wright]

What your photographs show is a knack of what the "art photographers" call previsualisation, a concept that dates back to Ansel Adams who defined it as "the ability to anticipate a finished image before making the exposure". I suppose its what separates a photographer from a casual snapshotter.  This ability allows you to insert your lens into the view as if you were at the same scale and so all the proportions and fine work of the modelmaker are captured as a realistic whole.   I wish I could do it, my layout photos all look like a homage to Brian Monaghan (cue helicopter sfx)....

 

Does Private Eye still have Pseuds Corner?  I hope not!   

I haven't read Private Eye for years, so I don't know. I don't know why I stopped taking it. 

 

The 'ability' to insert the lens into the view is largely dependent on the size of the camera. Years ago, when I used cameras which resembled house bricks in shape and weight, other than by splitting boards and having the beast on a sturdy tripod, it was impossible. I tried using a 35mm film camera (Barry Norman was brilliant at this), but I always found the small negative too restrictive in producing large sized prints.  

 

The first digital cameras were brilliant at getting eye level shots, but their measly pixel count made enlargements look like the models were made of Lego. More recent smaller digital cameras are much better, but I still can't get on with them (are my fingers too pudgy?). Then, I came across the Nikon Df. This looks and behaves exactly like a Nikon 35mm film SLR, except it's digital. All the controls are where they should be, not deep in some hopeless sub-menu which requires endless navigation to get what you want. It takes all my Nikon lenses as well, it's full-frame and small enough to place on a baseboard. 

 

However, despite its being 'small' (by digital SLR standards), it's still massive in comparison with the subject matter whose picture is being taken. 

 

 

This is (obviously) a prototype shot at LB, taken some time in the '50s. The original was a bit gloomy, and this is the best I can do by scanning the rather dark print. It would appear that the photographer has put the camera to his eye and taken the picture from that height (around 6'?). 

 

 

Could I replicate the view above in model form? I didn't want the same gloomy mood, so exposed this shot to show all the detail. But, because of the size of the camera, the viewpoint is too high in comparison, even though I'd placed the camera on the ground, not, as in the prototype shot, on the platform. Does that matter? It doesn't matter if it does, because I don't have a smaller camera. It still gives a 'realistic' view though, and by exploiting the tiny minimum aperture of the 55mm micro lens, all that needs to be in focus is. 

 

The basic point still remains, however; that being that the modelling shown here is to a very high standard, and that's what 'makes' this picture in my view. Though Norman Solomon's track has too narrow in gauge, it still looks 'right'. And, if Bob Dawson's buildings, Ian Wilson's structures, Mick Nicholson's signals, Geoff West's and Anglian's figures and Rob Davey's wagons weren't so well-made, all this picture would show is dud modelling, in sharp focus. The only out-of-kilter-bits are the telegraph poles - which I made!

 

The lovely little station barrows were made as gifts for the layout. 

Edited October 7, 2017 by Tony Wright

[Lecorbusier]

I haven't read Private Eye for years, so I don't know. I don't know why I stopped taking it. 

 

The 'ability' to insert the lens into the view is largely dependent on the size of the camera. Years ago, when I used cameras which resembled house bricks in shape and weight, other than by splitting boards and having the beast on a sturdy tripod, it was impossible. I tried using a 35mm film camera (Barry Norman was brilliant at this), but I always found the small negative too restrictive in producing large sized prints.  

 

The first digital cameras were brilliant at getting eye level shots, but their measly pixel count made enlargements look like the models were made of Lego. More recent smaller digital cameras are much better, but I still can't get on with them (are my fingers too pudgy?). Then, I came across the Nikon Df. This looks and behaves exactly like a Nikon 35mm film SLR, except it's digital. All the controls are where they should be, not deep in some hopeless sub-menu which requires endless navigation to get what you want. It takes all my Nikon lenses as well, it's full-frame and small enough to place on a baseboard. 

 

However, despite its being 'small' (by digital SLR standards), it's still massive in comparison with the subject matter whose picture is being taken. 

 

LB 009.jpg

 

This is (obviously) a prototype shot at LB, taken some time in the '50s. The original was a bit gloomy, and this is the best I can do by scanning the rather dark print. It would appear that the photographer has put the camera to his eye and taken the picture from that height (around 6'?). 

 

LB 010.jpg

 

Could I replicate the view above in model form? I didn't want the same gloomy mood, so exposed this shot to show all the detail. But, because of the size of the camera, the viewpoint is too high in comparison, even though I'd placed the camera on the ground, not, as in the prototype shot, on the platform. Does that matter? It doesn't matter if it does, because I don't have a smaller camera. It still gives a 'realistic' view though, and by exploiting the tiny minimum aperture of the 55mm micro lens, all that needs to be in focus is. 

 

The basic point still remains, however; that being that the modelling shown here is to a very high standard, and that's what 'makes' this picture in my view. Though Norman Solomon's track has too narrow in gauge, it still looks 'right'. And, if Bob Dawson's buildings, Ian Wilson's structures, Mick Nicholson's signals, Geoff West's and Anglian's figures and Rob Davey's wagons weren't so well-made, all this picture would show is dud modelling, in sharp focus. The only out-of-kilter-bits are the telegraph poles - which I made!

 

The lovely little station barrows were made as gifts for the layout. 

An interesting question is whether it might be possible by using photoshop to replicate the sense of distance in the camera shot? Have you played around with that at all? Focus would remain sharp (as indeed it would with a prototype photo taken with a high pixel camera) but the view does get more hazy as it recedes. I know many landscape modellers mute colours to give an impression of distance but you can't replicate distance hazing in model form. Or perhaps that would be counter to the whole point ... ie it is showing off a model not attempting to fool the eye! I saw some shots of Jim Smith-Wright's Brettell Road (which has been lit to be viewed on a wet winter day late afternoon just after dark) and some rain had been photoshopped on ... I found this quite interesting.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Lecorbusier

[coachmann]

Hope this messing around with your images is in order Tony. I have lightened the prototype image somewhat to more closely match your photo of the model and display more detail....

 

 

.........Then I altered the tones in your shot and lightened background detail to give a greater sense of distance....

 

I was offered a full frame Nikon digital a few years back (at a price!) when my nephew (a pro) was trading up.  But on balance I declined for the sole reason that a larger format offers less depth of field....as you know.  This drawback is apparent on my smaller frame DSLR when used to shoot moving video.

 

PS: I was doing this in photoshop while the above poster was posting.  We appear to be on the same track.

Edited October 7, 2017 by coachmann

[mullie]

I can't contribute regarding Photoshop as I don't use it but I have read Private Eye for over thirty years, although away from the house at the moment I'm sure Pseud's corner still exists!

 

Martyn

Edited October 7, 2017 by mullie

[KieranH]

Good Afternoon Tony/everyone.

 

This is my first post in this thread (and indeed on rmweb) but there seems to me to be a great many modellers contributing to the thread modelling similar periods and locations to myself so it seems the best place to come hunting for advice.

 

Just like to add a quick thank you to Tony for his chat last Sunday at the Wigan show, and for helping with my questions regarding locos and train formations, even though he may still be wondering why a man of 28 who barely remembers seeing anything other than DMUs and class 66s would be modelling the late 1950s... must be the variety of locos and stock that drew me to the period! To put you all in the picture, my layout is rather loosely based (pointwork being much simplified and some aspects removed completely due to space requirements) on Leeds Central (it also won't be called Leeds due to the number of changes, a new name has yet to be decided on but must sound convincingly West Yorkshire...). However, the train formations and running schedule from Leeds Central will be used as it is my view that, even though my layout is based in a fictitious city, by using correct train formations/loco diagrams etc. this will help add a sense of realism to my layout.

 

Once again, thanks to Tony for his help with which locos would have been used on services, and the coaches that would have formed the trains, and I look forward (very nervously I might add) to aquiring the kits required (both coaches and locos), and any future help/advice through this thread on what to aquire, where to aquire from, unusual anomolies that ran would be gratefully received and appreciated.

 

I would like to ask though, does anyone have any tips when it comes to soldering (other than keep practising)? As i first move away from the open the box, plonk it on and away we go train set into 'proper' modelling (buildings too will be made rather than bought to help create an atmosphere), my first attempts at soldering (on scraps, again, thanks to Tony for those!) have been somewhat of a disaster in that all I've managed was one badly made joint and several pieces of tinned metal (and fortunately, no burned fingers....yet). I feel it best to ask now and to take on board tips and advice on scraps rather than badly make and possibly damage/ruin my first kit as and when the time comes.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who may reply and I look forward to posting again in the future as things progress.

 

Kieran

[Headstock]

Good Afternoon Tony/everyone.

 

This is my first post in this thread (and indeed on rmweb) but there seems to me to be a great many modellers contributing to the thread modelling similar periods and locations to myself so it seems the best place to come hunting for advice.

 

Just like to add a quick thank you to Tony for his chat last Sunday at the Wigan show, and for helping with my questions regarding locos and train formations, even though he may still be wondering why a man of 28 who barely remembers seeing anything other than DMUs and class 66s would be modelling the late 1950s... must be the variety of locos and stock that drew me to the period! To put you all in the picture, my layout is rather loosely based (pointwork being much simplified and some aspects removed completely due to space requirements) on Leeds Central (it also won't be called Leeds due to the number of changes, a new name has yet to be decided on but must sound convincingly West Yorkshire...). However, the train formations and running schedule from Leeds Central will be used as it is my view that, even though my layout is based in a fictitious city, by using correct train formations/loco diagrams etc. this will help add a sense of realism to my layout.

 

Once again, thanks to Tony for his help with which locos would have been used on services, and the coaches that would have formed the trains, and I look forward (very nervously I might add) to aquiring the kits required (both coaches and locos), and any future help/advice through this thread on what to aquire, where to aquire from, unusual anomolies that ran would be gratefully received and appreciated.

 

I would like to ask though, does anyone have any tips when it comes to soldering (other than keep practising)? As i first move away from the open the box, plonk it on and away we go train set into 'proper' modelling (buildings too will be made rather than bought to help create an atmosphere), my first attempts at soldering (on scraps, again, thanks to Tony for those!) have been somewhat of a disaster in that all I've managed was one badly made joint and several pieces of tinned metal (and fortunately, no burned fingers....yet). I feel it best to ask now and to take on board tips and advice on scraps rather than badly make and possibly damage/ruin my first kit as and when the time comes.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who may reply and I look forward to posting again in the future as things progress.

 

Kieran

 

Holbeck high-level would be far more interesting than anything you could make up, real trains should be based on a real location. On soldering, keep it clean and use a minimum amount of solder and you cant go far wrong

[Lecorbusier]

 

 

I would like to ask though, does anyone have any tips when it comes to soldering (other than keep practising)? As i first move away from the open the box, plonk it on and away we go train set into 'proper' modelling (buildings too will be made rather than bought to help create an atmosphere), my first attempts at soldering (on scraps, again, thanks to Tony for those!) have been somewhat of a disaster in that all I've managed was one badly made joint and several pieces of tinned metal (and fortunately, no burned fingers....yet). I feel it best to ask now and to take on board tips and advice on scraps rather than badly make and possibly damage/ruin my first kit as and when the time comes.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who may reply and I look forward to posting again in the future as things progress.

 

Kieran

 As someone who has not been building kits for that long (3 or 4 years) and so recently went through just the learning curve you are embarked upon I would suggest 3 things. Make sure you have a decent iron (the 50w Antex temperature controlled I found did the trick for me). If you can and haven't already see if you can have a go at a show where someone experienced is demonstrating ... it can shortcut a lot of the initial experimentation. Finally I found Tony's right track video demonstration of kit building a fantastic guide. Not available to buy anymore I am afraid but it is on you tube 

 

[mullie]

I too found Tony' video incredibly helpful and watched it numerous times, I've only built an 0-6-0 and an etched wagon but all the advice Tony gives is worth absorbing and you will get some great tips from others who post on this thread. I've found it all incredibly helpful, this is a really interesting read even though I have to admit I don't always understand all of the more technical stuff.

 

Martyn

[Tony Wright]

Hope this messing around with your images is in order Tony. I have lightened the prototype image somewhat to more closely match your photo of the model and display more detail....

 

post-18225-0-97016700-1507364984_thumb.jpg

 

.........Then I altered the tones in your shot and lightened background detail to give a greater sense of distance....

post-18225-0-31289500-1507365129_thumb.jpg

 

I was offered a full frame Nikon digital a few years back (at a price!) when my nephew (a pro) was trading up.  But on balance I declined for the sole reason that a larger format offers less depth of field....as you know.  This drawback is apparent on my smaller frame DSLR when used to shoot moving video.

 

PS: I was doing this in photoshop while the above poster was posting.  We appear to be on the same track.

I don't mind what you've done at all, Larry.

 

My digital photo-processing skills are quite limited (I know just enough), so it's interesting to see how you've manipulated the image. 

 

I don't have a problem with more limited depth of field with a digital SLR, though it comes at a price. The lenses I use cost considerably more than most digital SLRs anyway. And, I don't shoot video, so don't know about that. 

 

Many thanks,

 

Tony. 

[Tony Wright]

Good Afternoon Tony/everyone.

 

This is my first post in this thread (and indeed on rmweb) but there seems to me to be a great many modellers contributing to the thread modelling similar periods and locations to myself so it seems the best place to come hunting for advice.

 

Just like to add a quick thank you to Tony for his chat last Sunday at the Wigan show, and for helping with my questions regarding locos and train formations, even though he may still be wondering why a man of 28 who barely remembers seeing anything other than DMUs and class 66s would be modelling the late 1950s... must be the variety of locos and stock that drew me to the period! To put you all in the picture, my layout is rather loosely based (pointwork being much simplified and some aspects removed completely due to space requirements) on Leeds Central (it also won't be called Leeds due to the number of changes, a new name has yet to be decided on but must sound convincingly West Yorkshire...). However, the train formations and running schedule from Leeds Central will be used as it is my view that, even though my layout is based in a fictitious city, by using correct train formations/loco diagrams etc. this will help add a sense of realism to my layout.

 

Once again, thanks to Tony for his help with which locos would have been used on services, and the coaches that would have formed the trains, and I look forward (very nervously I might add) to aquiring the kits required (both coaches and locos), and any future help/advice through this thread on what to aquire, where to aquire from, unusual anomolies that ran would be gratefully received and appreciated.

 

I would like to ask though, does anyone have any tips when it comes to soldering (other than keep practising)? As i first move away from the open the box, plonk it on and away we go train set into 'proper' modelling (buildings too will be made rather than bought to help create an atmosphere), my first attempts at soldering (on scraps, again, thanks to Tony for those!) have been somewhat of a disaster in that all I've managed was one badly made joint and several pieces of tinned metal (and fortunately, no burned fingers....yet). I feel it best to ask now and to take on board tips and advice on scraps rather than badly make and possibly damage/ruin my first kit as and when the time comes.

 

Thanks in advance to anyone who may reply and I look forward to posting again in the future as things progress.

 

Kieran

Kieran,

 

I'm sifting through West Riding train formations and I'll be sending you the information soon. 

 

The advice given about attending a show where soldering techniques are being demonstrated is good. For what it's worth, I'll be doing just such a thing at the Peterborough Show next weekend. 

 

Returning to the subject of prototype research, I've not long returned from the AGM of the LNER Society, in Grantham. I gave a talk afterwards, which was well-received - thank you gentlemen. Sorting and sifting through prototype photographs, drawings, diagrams, timetables, etc, etc, takes a great deal of time. I think the plan for the Society is to have a full database eventually, as a sort of repository of information regarding the LNER (and its predecessors and successors). I'll be joining the Society (something I should have done years ago) and I'll try and help where I can. 

 

Two thirds of the members who attended were modellers as well, and it's important that the two 'disciplines' are linked. Though all railway modellers I know are railway enthusiasts, not all (real) railway enthusiasts are railway modellers, but the link is there. It would seem, though, that some modellers seem to think that such societies are just there to provide a service. 'Hi LNER, can you send me information about (say) the formation of the Flying Scotsman in 1936?' was one introductory e-mail mentioned. 

 

I've had that as well. However, when a request is made in such a well-mannered way as the one you made, Kieran, then it's amazing how many 'doors are opened'. 

 

I recommend anyone interested in railways on the 'dry side' to join the LNER Society. 

[KieranH]

Kieran,

 

I'm sifting through West Riding train formations and I'll be sending you the information soon. 

 

The advice given about attending a show where soldering techniques are being demonstrated is good. For what it's worth, I'll be doing just such a thing at the Peterborough Show next weekend. 

 

Many thanks once again for those Tony, very much appreciated as I begin my endeavor, and thanks as well to the previous posters with soldering tips, I shall be watching the right tracks video on youtube with a keen eye.  I had hoped to go to one of the stands at Wigan offering soldering demonstrations, however, overrunning of other commitments that morning had rendered my trip to Wigan as a fleeting visit. I shall check the diary as to whether I'd be able to attend Peterborough next weekend (concert season with the brass bands approaches again), failing that, I shall be hunting for the next shows in my area with a view to hunting down the soldering demonstrators. 

 

Thanks again

 

Kieran

[Richard E]

Ah, Peterborough show, in my diary but it now looks like Sunday, not Saturday. Memo to self - catch up with Tony on his demo stand re soldering as I have a couple of brass and also whitemetal kits to build. Temperature controlled soldering iron also required ....